Trial Petitions Clear 0.8% Preliminaries... Law Firms Face Off for First Acceptance by Year-End [Invest&Law]

Full Bench Referral Rate Only 0.8%

Yulchon, Gwangjang, Bae Kim & Lee Race to Secure Key Cases

Former Constitutional, Supreme Court Justices Recruited to Strengthen Firms

Majority of Full Bench Cases Are “Dismissals Without Written Gro

With the Constitutional Court expected to issue the historic first “judicial review petition decision” (constitutional complaint against a finalized court judgment) within this year, major law firms are scrambling to prepare. To date, out of the 1,946 judicial review petitions filed with the Constitutional Court, only 17 cases—just 0.8%—have passed the preliminary review (designated panel) and moved on to the full bench. The law firms that have managed to clear this “0.8% narrow gate” are forming dedicated teams and fiercely competing to capture the coveted title of securing the very first favorable judgment in these cases.

“Seize the Cases that Reach the Full Bench”

According to the legal community on August 19, major law firms are now successfully advancing judicial review cases to the Constitutional Court’s full bench. The most notable is Yulchon LLC, whose judicial review task force (headed by attorney Kwon Hyukjun) was the first to secure a full bench hearing for the “GC Green Cross collusion fine case,” which the Supreme Court had previously dismissed through non-suspensive review, and is now contesting the constitutionality of the lower court’s ruling. Kwangjang’s constitutional litigation team (led by attorneys Kim Jungwon and Jeong Sujin) has advanced the “housing reconstruction maintenance association unjust enrichment case,” while Pacific Bae, Kim & Lee’s task force has brought a “disabled persons’ mobility rights case” before the full bench. HwaWoo’s task force is also seeking full bench hearings on the “foreign corporate income tax credit Supreme Court decision” and the “revocation of preferred negotiator status” decision. Jipyung’s judicial review center has advanced one case for which it serves as counsel to the full bench as well.

An attorney handling one of these cases commented, “Right now, just getting a case referred to the full bench is cause for optimism. Because this is the first time the system is being used, it’s still not clear whether merits hearings will even be open to the public, so we are continually supplementing opinions and responding in hopes of a favorable ruling.” The fact that fewer than 1% of petitioned cases reach the full bench reflects the Court’s cautious approach. An official familiar with the Constitutional Court’s deliberations remarked, “If too many cases proceed to the full bench, there is a risk of indiscriminate litigation or overall instability in the judicial system, which is why the screening process is so strict for now.”

However, a “race against time” is expected among the cases that do proceed to the main round. While the general rule for constitutional complaints is a first-in, first-out order of review, for judicial review petitions in particular, the consensus is that the court will issue decisions on these new types of cases ahead of others to help establish the system. Among constitutional complaint cases bearing the “Constitutional Complaint” (“Heonma”) case number, there are also complaints seeking rights relief beyond just judicial review petitions. A representative from a major law firm forecast, “It’s more likely that a simple case with clearly defined issues, rather than one based solely on order of filing, will become the first to receive a decision.” At least seven justices must be present at the substantive hearing, and a strict requirement of at least six out of nine Constitutional Court justices in favor is needed to finalize a favorable (i.e., overturning) decision.

Former Supreme Court and Constitutional Court Justices Take Center Stage

As anticipation grows that a “first favorable ruling” could trigger explosive growth in this new judicial review market, law firms are fiercely competing to recruit high-profile former judges. Kim & Chang has launched its “constitutional litigation center” led by former Constitutional Court Justices Kang Ilwon and Mok Youngjun, and former ICTY Justice Kwon Ogon. Pacific has assembled a mammoth task force of over 30 members, including former Supreme Court Justices Lee Gitaek and Cha Hansung, as well as attorney Kim Kyungmok, formerly a senior Constitutional Court researcher. Sejong has reinforced its team by bringing in Shin Dongseung, former senior research judge at the Constitutional Court, and Kim Hyeonyoung, also a former senior researcher. Yulchon welcomes Kim Yi-su, former Acting President of the Constitutional Court, as an advisor. HwaWoo’s 20-member team is led by former Supreme Court Justice Lee Inbok, while Jipyung is building its capabilities by recruiting Lee Gonghyeon, another former Constitutional Court justice.

The judicial review system is also disrupting long-established court practices. More than half of the cases that have reached the full bench so far are “non-suspensive review dismissals,” in which the Supreme Court did not specify grounds for the decision. In particular, cases dismissed due to procedural issues, such as the late submission of an appeal statement and then subsequently dismissed without detailed Supreme Court review, have become major focuses of the Constitutional Court. The Court’s stated intent is to concentrate on whether citizens’ “right to trial” has been violated due to procedural defects.

Even within the Supreme Court, there are signs of increased caution about non-suspensive review dismissals, with some judges now extending deadlines for appeal statements. Many judges are extremely reluctant to have their rulings later scrutinized for constitutionality before the Constitutional Court. As one attorney noted, “To prevent the embarrassment of a finalized ruling being overturned retrospectively by the Constitutional Court, it’s likely that judges will become much more proactive in thoroughly reviewing basic rights and ensuring constitutionality during the entire trial process from the first to the third instance.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.